jamal2609 comments

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@sabiwabi:

So they reject the thermite/thermate theory simply because of the observed fires and the "demonstrated" structural response. Not very convincing.

I guess that's what it all boils down to, right? It's a matter of what you believe. Judging from the results of this survey there seem to be plenty who feel the same way you do. Cheers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@sabiwabi:

One could also say that no evidence has been presented to PROVE NIST's conclusions, only innuendo and speculation.

Well, timtak misquoted the wikipedia article (check my post above). You should actually take a few minutes to read what NIST has to say regarding the collapse of WTC 7. The report was released in 2008. It is not just innuendo and speculation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@timtak:

They appear to have rejected this hypothesis on the grounds that the explosives could not have been brought into the buildings.

NIST didn't say that large quantities of thermite couldn't be taken into the buildings, they merely said it was unlikely. Anyway, the inability to get thermite/thermate into the building is not why they rejected the hypothesis.

Here is what they did say:

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

In reference to your post:

"the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." That needs to be repeated slowly. The NIST's best hyphothesis has a low probability of occurence.

That is just wrong.

If you had actually read the wikipedia article you referenced in your post you would have known that the "low probability of occurence" quote was in reference to the hypothesis put forward in the 2002 FEMA report on the collapse of WTC 7, not the 2008 NIST report.

That needs to be repeated slowly: the "low probability of occurence" quote was in reference to the hypothesis put forward in the 2002 FEMA report on the collapse of WTC 7, not the 2008 NIST report.

Consequently, NIST initiated their own investigation of the WTC 7 collapse, precisely because FEMA's explanation had a low probability of occurence. All you had to do was just read a couple of paragraphs beyond the "low probability of occurence" quote to see that this was the case!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@conspiracy theorists:

Look, if you're not going to read NIST's findings or reports, at least read the stuff I've copied into this post.

Or are you afraid by reading what NIST found in their investigation you might realize their conclusions are supported by evidence after a lengthy and thorough investigation, and might debunk your conspiracy theories?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@SamuraiBlue:

Investigators are REQUIRED to come with an open mind to a crime/accident scene and build up their hypothesis based on what they find at the scene NOT BEFORE.

NIST did go into the investigation with an open mind. They investigated several hypotheses, including the demolition hypothesis, and ruled out the ones that didn't match the preponderance of evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@SamuraiBlue:

According to your description on how NIST may have conducted investigation coming in with a hypothesis before actually starting investigation then omitting any anomalies that doesn't fit to their hypothesis really is not going to persuade the general public.

That was a hypothetical discussion concerning a fire investigator. I wasn't suggesting that is the way NIST approached the investigation at all.

In fact, NIST states exactly how they approached their investigation, it's scope, and what their goals were in their report. If people would just read NIST's findings they would know that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@Damien15:

These people, licenced architects and engineers, have no reason to lie.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

"These people" are really just one person. The other "people" you are referring to are individuals who have gone to the website and signed the guestbook. That's it.

And Mr. Gage has the luxury of not having to actually prove any of his assertions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

In response to the question "Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?", NIST had this to say:

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

and that's because:

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

This is why NIST ruled out the use of thermite/thermate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

In response to the question "Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?"

NIST has this to say:

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

As to why WTC 7's collapse was unusual, NIST states:

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

So according to NIST, WTC 7's collapse was a result of factors related to its design, and you don't need a conspiracy theory to explain it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@conspiracy theorists:

Also, as Gage mentions regarding WTC7, you would need to break all the core columns AT THE SAME TIME. That is certainly not possible if the cause was the reported damage and fire.

In response to the question "How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?" NIST states:

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

No evidence has been presented to disprove NIST's conclusions, only innuendo and speculation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@neogreenjapan:

You copy and pasted and then changed the words on the FBI page. Why do you do that?? Why does not FBI put your words there?

If you don't know I don't think I will be able to explain it to you. Sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@sabiwabi:

I am not going to waste anyone's time by copy/pasting their conclusions here. If you are not familiar with the findings of NIST or the 9/11 Commission Report, then I strongly suggest reading them prior to spreading conspiracy theories.

And before you say my unwillingness to copy/paste the findings from their report proves that everything NIST says is wrong, there is a nice summary here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets

And for further reading, you are welcome to examine the 9/11 Commission Report located here:

www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

These documents are available for free as a public service. If you look at the supporting appendices, you will see there are thousands of exhibits that support their conclusions.

Enjoy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@neogreenjapan:

The reason the FBI doesn't list Bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11 specifically is because they don't have evidence that he was directly involved. That makes a difference when you are trying to get someone to hold him in custody and they say something like 'you don't have any evidence he was involved in 9/11.'

If they can't put him in one of the planes and don't have him giving direct material support to the people that actually pulled it off, then they have to charge him with some sort of conspiracy. However, if you are aware of how his little entrepreneurial organization works, you are also aware that it would be difficult if not impossible to do this without getting some witness with knowledge of his involvement to testify against him at a trial.

This is different from saying the FBI thinks he is innocent.

Oh, and by the way, I just followed the link you posted. You might want to check the bottom of the page. Under the section that says CAUTION it reads:

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Emphasizing the last line:

IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Replace 'OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS' with 'THE 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACK' and replace 'THROUGHOUT THE WORLD' with 'IN THE UNITED STATES' and you get:

IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN THE 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE UNITED STATES.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@SamuraiBlue:

A case is not closed until all anomalies that may link to promote of destruction is solved in which this case it is the unexplained source of extreme heat reaching the melting point of steel.

You would have a point if you assumed that this particular anomaly was actually linked to the destruction of the buildings. Conspiracy theorists believed there was a link, NIST evaluated the argument and didn't.

The reason they didn't pursue the demolition hypothesis is because there was a large amount of actual evidence recovered from the scene that didn't support the theory. They didn't just rule out demolition by thermite/thermate, they ruled out ANY kind of demolition.

Many actual investigations work this way, too. Investigators of all stripes are faced with limited resources and are trained to quickly rule out alternative explanations if they can't be corroborated. The quicker you can rule out bad hypotheses, the more efficiently you can apply your resources to the viable ones.

The quality, diversity, and applicability of the evidence presented by NIST and the voracity of their findings are far superior to any of the speculation, innuendo, hyperbole, and half-truths I've seen on conspiracy theory sites. NIST had a large team of qualified investigators and subject matter experts with full access to the evidence at Ground Zero. They considered the demolition hypothesis, along with several other hypotheses, and rejected it.

I'm certain their investigation was not perfect, but no investigation is. However, there is so much to support the current explanation and very, very little to support the thermite demolition conspiracy theory. In this case, in spite of the after-the-fact criticism of their methods, I think NIST got it right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@manfromamerica:

That's easy: Dick Cheney evaporated the 56th floor using thermite/thermate during the collapse. That explains the molten steel found at the site. It must be true because you can check it out for yourself at the following link:

http://www.anynu-twithaco-mputerca-ncreateawebpage.com/dontbelieve/everythingyouread/ontheweb.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@SamuraiBlue:

A fire inspector's job is determine the cause of a fire, not systematically rule out every piece of evidence he finds.

Let's go with the fire inspector analogy, though. If an overwhelming majority of all of the available evidence, including eyewitness accounts, point of origin, the presence of accelerants, and material artifacts found at the scene point at arson, for example, he or she focuses time and energy on the arson investigation.

During the investigation, the investigator is told that the coffee pot had faulty wiring. Yes, the coffee pot could have caused the house to burn down, but an overwhelming majority of evidence points to arson with the use of accelerants. Later, the suspect is caught and confesses. Case closed.

Just because NIST didn't explain everything that was found at the site doesn't mean they didn't figure out what caused the towers to collapse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@sabiwabi:

Molten metal is not the same thing as molten steel. Witnesses reported seeing molten metal. There is a big difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@SamuraiBlue:

Stop deflecting my question, what caused the fire to burn to the point of melting point of steel?

If you look at my response, you'll see that I addressed your question. I'm telling you that NIST didn't care enough about it to investigate because it didn't matter, they already ruled out demolition using thermite/thermate or any other method.

Keep in mind one of the working hypotheses NIST had was in fact demolition using thermite/thermate as the conspiracy theorists suggest. However, after examining the evidence the 200 engineers, scientists and subject matter experts working on the investigation were able to determine that's not how it happened. I suggest you read the NIST report.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@SamuraiBlue:

NIST is not implying that the molten steel defied the laws of nature. All they are saying is that it's more likely the steel melted due to something that occured in the pile of rubble on the ground than from some thermite conspiracy theory.

They didn't bother to investigate because it didn't matter: they had already ruled out demolition based on many other factors, and based on the evidence. As was mentioned previously, NIST wasn't there to disprove all of the conspiracy theories, they were there to investigate the cause of the collapse, which they did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@timtak:

I think you should check out NIST's site. WTC 1 and 2 collapsed the way they did for very specific reasons related to their construction, and in the order they did because of the location of the aircraft impacts, among other things. The collapse is not hard to imagine with knowledge of the construction of the towers in mind.

NIST explains why WTC 7 collapsed. It's not a mystery, really. Check it out at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/. There's a fact sheet about the WTC 7 collapse release on 12/18/08 that's worth reading and explains much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@neogreenjapan:

SO NIST concludes that the motlen metal was from the aircraft then? Which was also found in Ground Zero 3 weeks after 9/11?

If you read the report carefully, you'll see that NIST did not conclude the molten metal on the ground around WTC 7 was from the aircraft. I'll include the quote again for your reference, since you seem to have missed it the first time:

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Specifically:

Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion.

MOLTEN STEEL

Not MOLTEN ALUMINUM

I see why you didn't site the exact source of your quote. What you've done is take, out of context, a section of the report that discussed the sitings of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC 2 prior to its collapse, then try to use that to show that NIST concluded the molten metal found around the site 3 weeeks later was aluminum.

Tsk, tsk, neogreenjapan. Please read the fact sheet more carefully. When you misquote like this it makes you appear disingenuous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@sabiwabi:

And we have you providing equally pathetic NIST quotes that are void of evidence.

Tsk, tsk. You didn't read any of the NIST stuff I sent you, did you?

That's OK, I'll post it here to make it easier for you:

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Now, if you think the 200 technical experts are also part of the conspiracy than please speak up. If so, I think techall, Beelzebub, and WilliB above will have to update their posts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@sabiwabi:

Ah, I see. So in order for NIST to be credible, every Physics Professor in the country that defends NIST must be able to beat Richard Gage in a debate?

Is this the only evidence you need to completely dismiss NIST's findings? I can see now why some are so ready to buy into conspiracy theories.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

If you want to read the fact sheet, you can get to it from this url:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@Farmboy:

Thanks for the assist. If you take a look, you'll see that the underscores were stripped from the URL. That's why the link didn't work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

So basically NIST is saying that over time, the temperature could conceivably under certain conditions increase high enough to melt steal. And this heat comes from what exactly, what is fueling it?

@sabiwabi:

If you read the fact sheet you'll see there are several reasons NIST ruled out demolitions.

NIST doesn't speculate as to where exactly the heat is coming from, because unlike conspiracy theory promoters they don't waste their time selling consipracies to a gullible readership. Once the demolition theory was ruled out they use evidence and inductive reasoning to get at the truth. If you read the report you'll see that's what they did.

NIST's objective was to determine what caused the WTC collapse, and their fact sheet does just that. They were not commissioned to go out there and disprove every nutcase conspiracy theorist that comes along deconstructing the facts to suit their delusions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@sabiwabi:

I'll make you a deal, you read the report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology and I'll read the conspiracy theorist link you sent me. If you read the NIST report, you'll see that it actually answers your questions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@conspiracy theorists:

The link I gave you doesn't work (the underscores surrounding the 8 were stripped after I posted). However, you can access the fact sheet I quoted from the URL http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/.

More fun facts from NIST about Thermite:

Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

I guess that easily could have been done by ... THE STRUCTURUAL ENGINEERS AT NIST!!!!!! I've discovered another conspiracy!

@manfromamerica: Cheers ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Do you believe that Al-Qaida was responsible for the events of 9/11 See in context

@conspiracy theorists:

With regards to the molten steel, I guess Cheney's minions over at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in response to a question asking why the reports of molten steel in the wreckage of the WTC were not considered in their investigation, have this to say:

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

And they had this to say about the thermite theory:

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

So, option #1, George Bush blew up the twin towers in a vast conspiracy involving just about every government agency to go to war in Iraq or option #2, the "thermite dust" was nothing more than traces of construction material from the already completely destroyed buildings, and the molten steel formed from the long exposure in the high temperatures that existed in the pile of rubble after the collapse.

Now I'm not a structural engineer, but the people over at NIST are. I'm going with NIST and Option #2.

Quotes from NIST were taken from the following site: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.